Commentaries on John (in catenae) 1 Jo 1, 1 In the beginning was the Word, without beginning, he says, according to time, and the Word was with God, as in not without beginning according to cause. See how from both sides he supports and secures the right doctrine concerning the Son. Then, since he called the Son Word and <αὖθις> Word, and the Father God, so that <μὴ> supposing the Father to be greater than the Son in substance you might fall <from the right>, at the same time as saying He was God he immediately connected and proclaimed the Son to be God. Why then was the Father not in the beginning and how could he not be? For if the Son in the beginning was with God and the Father, how could He himself not also be in the beginning, that is, timeless and without beginning? You see how from the Son's being without beginning, that is, timeless, we learn that the Father is likewise timeless. But he says, lest perhaps, even if the Son was in the beginning and without beginning and was with the Father, yet it is not yet clear from these things that the Father is timeless and co-unoriginate; for nothing prevents the Son from being in the beginning and being with the Father, but not being with the Father in the beginning. May it not be so, he says; for this One, he says, the Word who is in the beginning, was also in the beginning with the Father, so that from the Son's being timeless we are taught that the Father is also timeless and co-unoriginate <as> the Lord well said. 2 Jo 1, 1-2 This one was in the beginning with God. He was turned and ever inclined toward the paternal cause, he says; for even though He was begotten from Him, yet He was not separated from Him. But consider a theology lofty and perfect. He said in the beginning, he declared the timeless; he said the Word, he presented the impassibility of the generation and that, just as through our word things in it are declared and known, so also through the Word who is beyond mind we come to know the Father; for he who has seen the Son has seen the Father, and no one can know the Father, except him to whom the Son should reveal him. Well then does he say: In the beginning was the Word; then, so that you might not think that the Word exists as his own beginning, separated from the paternal, he immediately adds: and the timeless Word, impassible in his generation, was with God. He has Him as cause, He is turned toward Him. Then again, so that you might not think that He was in the beginning, but later took the Father as cause, he adds: This one was in the beginning with God. This one, he says, who is in the beginning, being timeless, both in the beginning and timelessly had the Father as cause. And neither is the being of the Son prior to His being from the Father and with Him, nor is the Father prior either to the Son or to the Son's being begotten from Him, that is, neither to the existence of the Word nor to His impassible generation. Through such words of the Spirit, sewing up beforehand the many mouths of the heretics: through "in the beginning" shaming Arians and Marcellus and Photinus and countless other heresies; through "the Word" shaming those who dare to attach some passion to the generation; through "and the Word was with God" shaming Marcion and all those who were so foolish as to say the Son was another beginning and opposed to the Giver of the law and Father; through "this one was in the beginning with the Father" shaming both the aforementioned Arians and the offshoots later cut down from them as from a rotten tree, those who split from there, such as those who monstrously claimed that God was always God, but not always Father, but became so later; for if the Word was in the beginning with God, when was it that God was not Father, since the beginning does not allow anything to be fashioned before it? Through these things slapping down all such blasphemy and outlining the timeless and impassible and inseparable from the Father and co-eternal, and that He is at once Word and at once Son, and that God is at once God and Father, arranging and unfolding these things well and with all wisdom, he uttered somehow in the middle also the conclusion from these things: and the Word, he says, was God, just as the Father also; for this had been said concerning the Father. He was God, not having the title simply, but such as the things previously said about Him demand to be understood, namely, the unbegun according to
Commentarii in Joannem (in catenis) 1 Jo 1, 1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, ἄναρχός φησι κατὰ χρόνον, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, οἷον οὐκ ἄναρχος κατ' αἰτίαν. ὅρα πῶς ἑκατέρωθεν ὑποστηρίζει καὶ συσφίγγει τὴν ὀρθὴν δόξαν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ. εἶτα ἐπειδὴ τὸν υἱὸν Λόγον καὶ <αὖθις> Λόγον εἶπεν, τὸν δὲ πατέρα θεόν, ἵνα <μὴ> μείζονα τὸν πατέρα ὑπολαβὼν κατ' οὐσίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ <τοῦ ὀρθοῦ> ἐκπέσῃς, ἅμα τοῦ εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν θεὸν εὐθέως συνάψας καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἀνεκήρυξεν θεόν. τί οὖν ὁ πατὴρ οὐκ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν καὶ πῶς οὐχί; εἰ γὰρ ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ υἱὸς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα ἦν, πῶς οὐκ ἂν εἴη καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ἀρχῇ, τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἄχρονος καὶ ἄναρχος; ὁρᾷς πῶς ἐκ τοῦ ἄναρχον ἤτοι ἄχρονον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν μανθάνομεν ὁμοίως ἄχρονον εἶναι καὶ τὸν πατέρα. ἀλλὰ μή ποτέ φησιν, εἰ καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν καὶ εἰ ἄναρχος ὁ υἱὸς καὶ εἰ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἦν, ἀλλ' οὔπω δῆλον ἐκ τούτων ὁ ἄχρονος καὶ συνάναρχος καὶ ὁ πατήρ· οὐδὲν γὰρ κωλύει καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἶναι, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐν ἀρχῇ αὐτὸν εἶναι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, μὴ γένοιτο, φησίν· οὗτος γάρ, φησίν, ὁ Λόγος ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὢν καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ὥστε ἐκ τοῦ ἄχρονον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν ἄχρονον καὶ συνάναρχον διδασκόμεθα καὶ τὸν πατέρα <ὡς> καλῶς ἔλεγεν ὁ δεσπότης. 2 Jo 1, 1-2 Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. ἐπεστραμμένος ἦν καὶ νεύων ἀεὶ πρὸς τὴν πατρικὴν αἰτίαν, φησίν· εἰ γὰρ καὶ γεγέννηται ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ' οὐ διέστη αὐτοῦ. σκόπει δὲ θεολογίαν ὑψηλὴν καὶ ἀπηρτισμένην. εἶπεν ἐν ἀρχῇ, ἐδήλωσεν τὸ ἄχρονον, εἶπεν ὁ Λόγος, παρέστησεν τὸ ἀπαθὲς τῆς γεννήσεως καὶ ὅτι, ὥσπερ διὰ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ παρ' ἡμῖν τὰ ὑπ' αὐτῷ δηλοῦται καὶ γινώ σκεται, οὕτω καὶ διὰ τοῦ Λόγου τοῦ ὑπὲρ νοῦν τὸν πατέρα ἐπιγινώσκομεν· ὁ γὰρ ἑωρακὼς τὸν υἱόν, ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐπιγνῶναι τὸν πατέρα, εἰ μὴ ᾧ ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ. καλῶς οὖν φησιν· ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, εἶτα ἵνα μὴ νομίσῃς ἰδίαν ἀρχὴν ἀπεσχισμένην τῆς πατρικῆς ὑπάρχειν τὸν Λόγον, εὐθέως ἐπάγει· καὶ ὁ Λόγος ὁ ἄχρονος, ὁ ἀπαθὴς τὴν γέννησιν, πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἦν. αὐτὸν αἰτίαν ἔχει, πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐπέστραπται. εἶτα πάλιν ἵνα μὴ νομίσῃς, ὅτι ἦν μὲν ἐν ἀρχῇ, ὕστερον δὲ τὸν πατέρα προσείληφεν εἰς αἰτίαν, ἐπάγει· οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. οὗτος, φησίν, ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ, ὁ ἄχρονος ὢν καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ καὶ ἀχρόνως αἰτίαν εἶχεν τὸν πατέρα. καὶ οὔτε τὸ εἶναι τοῦ υἱοῦ πρεσβύτερον τοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν εἶναι, οὔτε ὁ πατὴρ πρεσβύτερος ἢ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἢ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν υἱόν, τοῦτ' ἔστιν οὔτε τῆς ὑπάρξεως τοῦ Λόγου οὔτε τῆς ἀπαθοῦς αὐτοῦ γεννήσεως. διὰ τῶν τοιούτων τοῦ πνεύματος λόγων πολλὰ στόματα προαποράπτων τῶν αἱρετικῶν, διὰ μὲν τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ Ἀρειανοὺς καὶ Μάρκελλον καὶ Φωτεινὸν καὶ μυρίας ἄλλας αἰσχύνων αἱρέσεις, διὰ δὲ τοῦ ὁ Λόγος τοὺς πάθος τι τῇ γεννήσει τολμῶντας προσάπτειν, διὰ δὲ τοῦ καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν Μαρκίωνά τε καὶ τοὺς ὅΣοι ἑτέραν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἀντίθεον τῷ τοῦ νόμου δοτῆρι καὶ πατρὶ τὸν υἱὸν εἰπεῖν ἠφρονήσαντο, διὰ δὲ τοῦ οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα τούς τε προειρημένους Ἀρειανοὺς καὶ τὰς ἐξ αὐτῶν ὕστερον ὥσπερ ἀπὸ σαπροῦ δένδρου κατατμηθείσας παραφυάδας, τοὺς ἐκεῖθεν ἀποσχισθέντας οἷον θεὸν μὲν ἀεὶ εἶναι τὸν πατέρα, οὐκ ἀεὶ δὲ πατέρα, ἀλλ' ἐπιγενέσθαι ἐτερατεύσαντο· εἰ γὰρ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος πρὸς τὸν θεόν, πότε ἦν, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν πατὴρ ὁ θεός, τῆς ἀρχῆς μηδὲν πρὸ αὐτῆς μηδ' ἀναπλάσαι συγχωρούσης; διὰ τούτων πᾶσαν τὴν τοιαύτην βλασφημίαν ἐπιρραπίζων καὶ τὸ ἄχρονον καὶ ἀπαθὲς καὶ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἀδιάστατον καὶ συναΐδιον ὑπογράφων καὶ ὅτι ἅμα τέ ἐστι Λόγος καὶ ἅμα υἱὸς καὶ ὅτι ἅμα τέ ἐστι θεὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, ταῦτα καλῶς καὶ πανσόφως διατάσσων τε καὶ ἀναπλῶν ἐν μέσῳ πως ἐνεφθέγξατο καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτων συναγόμενον καὶ θεὸς ἦν, φησίν, ὁ Λόγος ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ πατήρ· τοῦτο γὰρ εἴρητο περὶ τοῦ πατρός. θεὸς ἦν οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἔχων τὴν κλῆσιν, ἀλλ' οἷον ἐννοεῖν ἀπαιτεῖ τὰ προειρημένα περὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸ ἄναρχον κατὰ